10 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSince you don't seem to understand the meaning of "endorse":
so if it was not obligatory then God would hardly be endorsing it would he, in fact if he was, he would have made it obligatory, would he not? But he did not! Therefore i reject your claims of endorsement! Not only that, put you have provided no reasons as to why measures were taken to stem abuse, why not? I reject also your claims of dishonesty.
from http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/endorse
a : to approve openly <endorse an idea>; especially : to express support or approval of publicly and definitely
Why don't you stop all this dancing around and engage in an honest discussion?
Once again:
Can there really be any circumstance under which slavery is not condemned?
Are there any Christians who will condemn God's endorsement of slavery?
10 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnei am perfectly aware of what endorse means, as in to endorse a product, since God did not make it obligatory then he cannot be endorsing it can he? can you imagine someone endorsing a product and then telling the consumer that it might be good or bad for them, no, well then i reject your claims! Indeed if God did provide approval for it, why did he make it a capital offence to kidnap and sell someone into slavery? why have you provided no reasons as to why God provided detailed laws and ordinances to protect those sold under slavery? either answer the questions or fess up to deliberate manipulation of words and events to suit your underhanded machinations!
Since you don't seem to understand the meaning of "endorse":from http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/endorse
a : to approve openly <endorse an idea>; especially : to express support or approval of publicly and definitely
Why don't you stop all this dancing around instead of engaging in an honest discussion?
Once again:
Can ther ...[text shortened]... s not condemned?
Are there any Christians who will condemn God's endorsement of slavery?
10 Oct 10
Since the very first word in the title of this thread is "Judaism" I would like to share what a rabbi (reformed) taught me many years ago about the christian "interpretation" of these Judaic writings.
1. The Old Testament (as christians call it) is NOT a verbatim "word of god" text. Christians are wrong (or at least silly) to assume that.
2. It is merely a guide for living several thousand years ago much of which was passed down orally for centuries before being written down. Of course some is regarded as instructions from god, but only a small amount.
3. It is NOT a sacred text , although some parts are.
4. It is not entirely historically accurate.
Given that, in this thread, several christians refuse to openly condemn a heinous system of slavery it is easy to see how such crimes, as the Inquisition, took place and one day might happen again.
10 Oct 10
6 edits
Originally posted by caissad4well well, what a Rabbi says, reformed or otherwise on the subject is neither here
Since the very first word in the title of this thread is "Judaism" I would like to share what a rabbi (reformed) taught me many years ago about the christian "interpretation" of these Judaic writings.
1. The Old Testament (as christians call it) is NOT a verbatim "word of god" text. Christians are wrong (or at least silly) to assume that.
2. It is merely ...[text shortened]... asy to see how such crimes, as the Inquisition, took place and one day might happen again.
nor there for we are Christians, perhaps if he had provided some reasons as to why
he stated the things he did, we may be able to examine those reasons. You should
read Albert Edersheim, The life and times of the Messiah for a clear and informed
opinion of the ordinances of the law and the parallels in Christianity
1. All scripture, that is the old/new covenant (agreement or as some like to refer to
it, testament) is considered, inspired of God, 2 Tim 3:16,17
2.There are two Laws which concern the ancient Hebrews, the Mosaic Law and the so
called oral Law which was meant to explain and embellish upon the former, which
however eventually came to supersede that law and make it burdensome. The Law
was given to Moses who served as a mediator between himself, the Israelites and
God.
3.Mere opinion
4.More unsubstantiated opinion.
Indeed when one examines the content of your text Caissa it is naught but one
unsubstantiated opinion after another, indeed without reason, what is there to
discuss? So God permitted slavery, what of it? Did he not also provide ordinances
to stem its abuse? even we as Christians are termed, 'slaves of the Christ'.
10 Oct 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis doesn't even begin make any sense. But then, that is where you always seem to go when you can't muster an intelligent argument.
i am perfectly aware of what endorse means, as in to endorse a product, since God did not make it obligatory then he cannot be endorsing it can he? can you imagine someone endorsing a product and then telling the consumer that it might be good or bad for them, no, well then i reject your claims! Indeed if God did provide approval for it, why did he ...[text shortened]... or fess up to deliberate manipulation of words and events to suit your underhanded machinations!
Even after I provided you with the definition you still can't seem to wrap your mind around the idea that an "endorsement" only requires approval of the endorser, not that he make it obligatory. So once again the definition is "to approve openly" which is done in Leviticus 25. It does not say "to approve and make obligatory". Are you really so dim that you can't understand this?
10 Oct 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnei do not accept your premise nor your definition, slavery was merely permitted, it was never Gods intention that persons should be subject to slavery, are you really so bereft of Biblical understanding so as to be unable to put the constituent parts together so as to form a whole ? What an ultra maroon!
This doesn't even begin make any sense. But then, that is where you always seem to go when you can't muster an intelligent argument.
Even after I provided you with the definition you still can't seem to wrap your mind around the idea that an "endorsement" only requires approval of the endorser, not that he make it obligatory. So once again the definiti ...[text shortened]... to approve and make obligatory". Are you really so dim that you can't understand this?
10 Oct 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf it wasn't God's intention that persons be subjected to slavery, it begs the question, why was it permitted in the first place?
i do not accept your premise nor your definition, slavery was merely permitted, it was never Gods intention that persons should be subject to slavery, are you really so bereft of Biblical understanding so as to be unable to put the constituent parts together so as to form a whole ? What an ultra maroon!
And secondly, how do you know what God's intentions are, have you spoke to him recently?
10 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobfirstly it is relatively easy to state that Gods original purpose was for man to have dominion of the earth, to cultivate and look after it and to expand the borders of paradise throughout the entire earth. Since moral independence from God has resulted in all manner of ills, man came to dominate man to his injury, thus we see that tyranny and corruption have taken root, greed and self interest have replaced justice and self sacrifice.
If it wasn't God's intention that persons be subjected to slavery, it begs the question, why was it permitted in the first place?
And secondly, how do you know what God's intentions are, have you spoke to him recently?
I know what Gods intentions are because i read the Bible, indeed if you ever visit Brooklyn, New York, and perchance happen to go over the Brooklyn Bridge, you shall see a large sign, on the outside of our headquarters, Read Gods Word the Bible Daily - see to it and you shall do well!
BTW i heard through the grapevine that ol Dicky Dawkins has given us a mention on his web page, he calls our Awake magazine, that strange little magazine, hehe, only cause he gets a mention in it, not that of course he could be accused of self aggrandisement! noooo! He claims that we are 'mad', i think he really meant 'angry', because atheists are expressing their views, Lol, what complete sensationalistic jingoism! Its under the heading Jehovah’s Witnesses Mad That Atheists Won’t Keep Their Views to Themselves, it is of course tosh that we are angry that you should express your point of view.
10 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]well well, what a Rabbi says, reformed or otherwise on the subject is neither here
nor there for we are Christians,
No dear, YOU are a christian.
Any religion which continues to endorse such a crime against humanity is scum. And you and your god endorse slavery yesterday, today and always.
10 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by caissad4my dear Caissa was it written with invisible ink? shall i hold a candle up to it? ultra violet light perhaps? We do not endorse slavery, as i have stated, God never intended for slavery to be a part of life, it is as a consequence of tyranny and exploitation. i have every hope that all kinds of injustices shall be terminated in the very near future and every confidence that it shall happen.
10 Oct 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSometimes i'm amazed by your twisting of words.
firstly it is relatively easy to state that Gods original purpose was for man to have dominion of the earth, to cultivate and look after it and to expand the borders of paradise throughout the entire earth. Since moral independence from God has resulted in all manner of ills, man came to dominate man to his injury, thus we see that tyranny and corru ...[text shortened]... emselves, it is of course tosh that we are angry that you should express your point of view.
He claims that we are 'mad', i think he really meant 'angry'.
How on earth do you know what he meant? Can you mind read across the internet? What's even more bizarre is that you then argue the point that you've just made up -
it is of course tosh that we are angry
Who said you were? You did!!!!!!! Have you been on the Scotch tonight?
Here's the link, the very brief article isn't written by Dawkins and there is no mention of the word 'mad' as far as i can see.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/513003-jehovah%E2%80%99s-witnesses-mad-that-atheists-won%E2%80%99t-keep-their-views-to-themselves
So to recap, Dawkins didn't mention your organisation as he didn't write the article. So he didn't use the word 'mad' as you claimed, because
1. He didn't write the piece and
2. The word mad isn't used anyhow.
You then by using your new found paranormal skills somehow new that Dawkins actually meant 'angry', when in fact he couldn't have could he?
I'm afraid the only 'sensationalistic jingoism' is coming from your direction Rob. Time to get a new grapevine i think.
10 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobwell he endorsed the idea by hosting it on his personal web-site did he not, and as i have not read the article, i have simply deduced contextually from the article title that 'mad' must have meant 'angry', and no amount of 'have you been on the scotch', and other vain accusations can diminish the fact! Not to mention that whoever posted it has infringed upon the copyright! criminals!
Sometimes i'm amazed by your twisting of words.
He claims that we are 'mad', i think he really meant 'angry'.
How on earth do you know what he meant? Can you mind read across the internet? What's even more bizarre is that you then argue the point that you've just made up -
it is of course tosh that we are angry
Who said you were is coming from your direction Rob. Time to get a new grapevine i think.
11 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNobody's that dim.
i do not accept your premise nor your definition, slavery was merely permitted, it was never Gods intention that persons should be subject to slavery, are you really so bereft of Biblical understanding so as to be unable to put the constituent parts together so as to form a whole ? What an ultra maroon!
It is not MY definition. It is from merriam-webster. Once again:
from http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/endorse
a : to approve openly <endorse an idea>; especially : to express support or approval of publicly and definitely
It is not MY premise. It is clearly stated in Leviticus 25:44-46:
you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you... they also may become your possession...‘You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves.
Clear approval is given to acquire and possess permanent slaves.
As part of the Jehovah's Witnesses indoctrination do you learn to just absurdly deny anything that goes against what the Watchtower Society tells you?
11 Oct 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneJust learning to read? I already explained why I said what I did which you continue to ignore and cherry pick what you want. I take it you are very young which your posts tell me. I'll leave you alone in your own little imaginary world since you never understood anything I said.
Not sure that I can dumb it down much more for you, but I'll try. I'll paste text from my previous post and offer additional comments.
[quote]First of all, in a response to my remark about your "self-centered attitude", you said, "You as well mate. We are human after-all." which is an admission on your part, so that you continue to pitch a hissy fit ab ...[text shortened]... ] heart" base on what is written on a message board. This is hypocrisy.